About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21
of this stuff. it's out in the open. it's up on the websites of u.n., european union, the american bar association, the deans of most law schools in american universities, leading american foundations. it's all there on the internet. people are not talking about world government anybody, but world governance, a form of transnational governance. look at four people, quick views, and talbot, the president of the brookings institution, a major think tank in washington. the former secretary of state, and as a journalist for time magazine in the 1990s, they wrote an article in which he welcomed super national political authority. he said, quote, "i'll bet within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete and all states will recognize a single global authority." he concluded saying "the devra davis luges of power upwards of units of administration is basically a positive phenomena." coe, currently, today, the chief legal adviser of the u.s. state department, in other words, he advises the president on what the law is, was gave a major speech last week at georgetown law,
's right out in the open. up on the web sites of u.n., european union, the american bar association, the deans of most law schools at american universities, leading american foundations, it's all there on the internet. and people are not talking about world government anymore, they're talking about global gore nance -- governance, this form of transnational governance. so let's look at four people, quick views of theirs, who have given ideas about this. strobe talbot is currently the president of the brookings institution, he's former secretary of state and as a journalist for time magazine in the 1990s, talbot wrote an article in which he welcomed supernational political authority. he said, quote: i'll bet that within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, and all state will recognize a single global authority. he concluded by saying that this devolution of power upwards toward the supernational and downwards toward autonomous units of administration is basically a positive phenomena. harold coe is currently -- today he's the chief legal adviser of the u.
important element, the u.n. dimension: respect for the territorial integrity and independence of iraq. so that meant that the action team could not go to nondeclared facilities. only delareed facilities could be -- declared facilities could be inspected. but then the security council formed out that right to, i would say, break the integrity to the -- [inaudible] so they were charged with nondeclared facilities and activities. of course, then it was, obviously, chemical, biological. but the beauty of these wars that it's tough sanctions system was in place. we have to have that also. but immediately when the inspection started, the sanction system was gradually released. so this was a functioning system, good behavior led also to these single sanctions. bad behavior, which happened, of course, quite frequently, some blockages and refusals, was met by some tough language from the security council. not from the israeli government or anyone, it was security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. so, of course, we know that this system works extremely well. it
crisis. i would argue that preceding the latest sanctions against iran, that when the p5 plus one, the u.n. security council and germany sat down to talk to iran, there is a problem sequencing. iran wants p5+1 to recognize the enriched uranium and wants iran to build confidence to undertake measures that show the international community that tehran is serious about compromising on the nuclear program. because if you think about it, it's much easier for iran to stop enriching uranium to 24%. it's much easier to stop loving for the facility, which is buried under the mountain. it's easier for iran to open up its eighth including a suspected military nuclear weapons site to international inspection. it's much harder, however, to the sanctions of the united states and its allies has spent years and years building. so right now, we find ourselves in an advantageous position vis-À-vis the republic. iran is not a dissent to power in the middle east. there's one thing however announce the military conflict with iran. the israeli attack against iran could roll back some of these achievements. it c
the perhaps more cyberattacks that are maybe something like an armed attack under the u.n. charter conceivably i suppose, even inactive or, though that is debatable at this point to whether we seen anything like that today. i put a few appear that are relevant. computer network attack talking about that encompass different things. computer network exploitation is basically a to infiltrate a computer network for any of the purposes i just described. it may be some of armed attack. maybe it is for criminal activities and you're hoping to be surreptitious about which are doing. babies are espionage and again are hoping to be surreptitious. so i have an example of how these concepts interrelate to one another and how if you're in the business of computer network defense, you're trying to defend networks at your company. if you look at this from a policy perspective for the united states, for example i'm how vulnerable is the united states? how vulnerable is our critical infrastructure, nuclear power plants, things like that. you quickly see that an infiltration into the network might be to steal a
at the u.n. and had this graphic illustration of the problem, he created what was a new threshold for them. and the threshold. from the previous to my don't know, 6-12 months the israelis have been focusing on primarily because of the defense minister, what he called the son of immunity. what he meant was, iran was going to of, with the character of the sip their program, the theft of the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program would reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military options. and not just this one, easily accept a situation where they face a threat but no longer have the military option to deal with it. and so what he was trying to say come identify the point at which the zone of immunity, he was saying it would be the end of 2012. he has changed that and said it has been pushed back. when the prime minister was in new york he focused on the point at which the iranians would cross a threshold where there would have the ability to grow the nuclear weapon and you would not be allowed to do anything about it. he was suggesting that would be when they
their leader and needed help to do it and went to the u.n. to get that help. >> there were large numbers of iraqis that would have liked him overthrown -- >> there's a much more sectarian situation. >> sure it was. >> and libya was not a sectarian situation. so if you had a situation where you had support with the vast majority of the people, and you had u.n. backing so there was no way it could be tarred as a u.s.-alone, imperialistic attack to try to scoop up natural resources for yourself and cause blowback, then, yes -- >> i have seen this movie before, and hearing this talk about, oh, yeah, we're not going to bring in the exiles, and we're going to pick legitimate people in the country, and tom friedman backs it up. please. i saw it the first time. you guys were all in school the first time, but even there you probably got the idea that it didn't work out so hot. let's just let things happen the way they're going to -- let other people worry about their own countries. we have enough problems in this country. >> jim, did you have -- [applause] >> yeah. no, that's fairly similar to my
terms, then yes, somebody will welcome u.n. and welcome your big ships in, then maybe you might be able just to pull it off and still have something in the indian ocean and the eastern mediterranean. and by the way, it isn't just the defense ships but if there's any kind of problems you have to send other ships there. so the numbers don't add up that way. in terms of michele's direct question, you know, how do we deal with this, after all, this is a much larger problem. don't forget, the national debt right now is $10 trillion, give or take. if the sequestered it, that's 54.6, correct me, you're the one who knows it to the nearest 10th of a bill i think it is 54.6 billion for each of nine years. 54.6 billion off of 10 trillion? think about that. how big he didn't are you making in the national debt? now why am i looking at the debt? because the budget is a fraction of the problem. the problem is entitlement. it is not defense. defense is practically a rounding error. so if you want to go ahead and trade defense as a hostage to the issues that have to be dealt with, go right ahead. but t
when he gave his speech at the u.n. and he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he created what was a new threshold for them. for the previous, i don't know, six to 12 months, israelis have been focusing on what they called immunity. the result of immunity. what you mean by that was the death and the breath and the hardening of the nuclear program they face an existential threat and have the military option to deal with it. so they are saying under a point at which they own immunity is going to kick in, he was saying this is going to be the end of 2012. he has changed that and has said it has been pushed back eight to 10 months. when the prime minister was in new york, he focused not only on his own immunity, but the point at which iranians would cross the threshold where they would have the ability to build a nuclear weapon and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. and he was suggesting that that would be when they had one at 20%. that is a limited definition. the issue for him was to define in a way, it also pushed off into the middle of 2013. they came up with di
was right yesterday when he said are you you -- of our u.n. ambassador susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states' interest in the united nations with skill and professionalism, with toughness and grace to go after the u.n. ambassador he said who had nothing to do with benghazi, was simply making a presentation based on the intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. i agree with him. we owe it to her, we owe it to everyone involved in every federal agency to get the facts before us before we point a finger of blame. if there is blame, let us make certain that it is apportioned to those who deserve it rather than to make wild charges against many others. my good friend, senator john mccain -- and he really is my friend -- he and i have debated on the floor many times, but he said something that i want to quote from 2005 when there were criticisms of condoleezza rice who was being considered for the office of secretary of state. this is what senator mccain said -- "so i wonder why we're starting this new congress with
and that is the un's help is needed. so we see that continuing policy of focusing on military support to president hadi as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. donna cranfield for the middle east. i agree with both of your comments and statements that the narrow view of our security approach is counterproductive and development approach should be taken. a bit too pushy both a little bit further in defining what that would look like. imagine you said at the pentagon and try to conceive of a programmer approach to be more project to an understanding that you don't have to be responsible for the next bomber who does slip through the cracks and understanding that the development approach i think we all see as fundamentally essential will take years if not decades to actually achieve it subject to so for the and medium term strategy, what is the alternative? pulling back and drum strikes may be something that i like to see. i guess that also with the mind of the last question that presidents hadi's rough embracing is seeking ownership in the way he mentioned that needs to happen -- [inaudible] so here is
at the u.n. and e had this graphic -- he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he was, he created what was a new threshold for them. he called it a red line, but a new threshold. they had -- for the previous, i don't know, 6-12 months the israelis had been focusing on, primarily because of the defense minister, ehud barak, the zone of immunity. and what he meant was iran was going to with the character of its nuclear program, the depth, the breadth, the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program was going to reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military option. and no israeli prime minister is going to accept a situation where they face an existential threat, but they no longer have a military option to deal with it. so ehud barak was trying to identify the point at which the zone of immunity was going to kick in. now, he was saying it was going to be the end of 2012. now, he's changed that and said it's been pushed back 8-12 -- 8-10 months. when the prime minister was in new york he focused not on the zone of immunity, he focused on what's the point in
. when i look at what's going on this area, to u.n. security council is dysfunctional, not working, not capable of coming to a conclusion. the g20 has not fulfilled, at least not according to me, the expectations we had when this larger body was created. in other words, from a european point of view, you need to worry about the fact that europe will have obviously a smaller portion of the cake in the future. germany is going to a 1% of the worlds population. the e.u. altogether 5%, 40 or so. in other words, what probably needs minority protection. we have a ton about that much. that's a specific problem for europeans, not so much for americans. if that is correct analysis, did we need to worry about global governance. we are capable as long as we are in charge and as long as we still represent to some degree the majority and as long as are capable for helping to shape the international system. we are capable of shaping an international system, which will be sustained even when we are only a minority. in other words, we called the shot. can we reform the u.n., the g20 system and oth
relations with israel, the role of the security council and in the city council in the u.n. almost everything important is at stake in this. this is the most critical and most dangerous situation that the administration will be facing in the next year. looking at in the wind while this year is critical we have to realize this isn't all about some misunderstanding or fixable problem with iran not to getting about its civil nuclear program or even its nuclear weapons program colliding with the international community. these are all manifestations of the long term confrontation that we and the rest of the region has with iran at least since the 1970's and this confrontation will go on regardless of whether we get a nuclear deal or have a strike to prevent iran from moving to that nuclear weapons capability. we are going to have to deal with this problem over the longer term just as we have the last 30 years because it flows from kuran's view of its role in the region and the inconsistency of the view with the view of the other countries in the region, our values and our role both in t
, the role of the security council, and our role in the security council in the u.n. system. almost everything that's important is at stake with this. this is the most critical and most dangerous situation that the administration will be facing in the next year. looking at it, though, and while this year is critical, as den sis said, we have to realize this is not all about some misunderstanding or some fixable problem with iran not getting it about itself civil nuclear program or colliding with the international community. these are all manifestations of the long term confrontation that we, and the rest of the west and the region had with iran as least since the 1970s. this will go on, regardless of whether we get a nuclear deal or we have a strike to prevent iran from moving to the nuclear weapons capability. we're going to have to deal with this problem over the long term just as we have over the last 30 years because it flows from iran's view of its role in the region and inconsistency of that view with the view of the other countries in the region, our values, and our role, bot
clear at the meeting at the u.n. in september, and, of course, now we have very interesting results from two states here from washington state and from colorado, and in addition to the 17 or 18 that where marijuana is used for medicinal purposes and two states to be used for recreational purposes, and we have pressure from the region joined with pressure and trends and shift in public opinion within the united states, which i think contributes an adds to greater pressure on the administration at the national level to rethink its policy and drugs, clearly having a negative effect or perceived to having negative effects in terms of crime and violence and corruption in many countries in latin america. here, again, i think the obama administration would probably say that there's some things to move forward on the issue, talking about shared responsibility, but i think despite changes in the discourse, the elements of the policy have been pretty unchanged until now, but this, again, this opens some possibilities. the reaction in mexico will be critical where this goes, and president-elect wil
. most generally at the general assembly meeting in u.n. in september and of course we have interested results from two states here from washington state and from colorado in addition to the many cities are 17 or 18 where marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes. these two states can be used for recreational purposes. here we have the pressure from the region joined with some of the pressure and trends and shifts in public opinion within the united states, which will contribute and add to greater pressure on the administration at the national level to rethink its policy on drugs, which is clearly having negative effects are perceived to having negative effects in terms of crime, violence and corruption in many countries in latin america. here again, the obama administration would probably say it's been some names to move forward on this issue, talked about shared responsibility. but despite some changes in discourse, the essential elements of the policy have been pretty unchanged until now. but again, this does open some possibilities. the reaction will be particularly critical to
are only a minority? in other words, when others call the shots. can we reform the u.n., the g20 system, and other international institutions including the world bank, an antiquated voting system, except her in a way that the rising powers, when they asked for a greater share of the cake, they find that acceptable, legitimate, and fair. i think that is a huge task that we should commit ourselves to, but with a sense of confidence. so far i think there is no reason for us to believe that we have run out of steam. >> i feel like them back in the u.s. election with my hedge fund buddies talking about the travails of the 1%. let's broaden the discussion, bring in some of are more diverse voices. anybody want to enter the conversation, just raise your hand. alcoa new. we have people with mike sue want to colony. the state your name and affiliation and ask a question record comment. >> thank you. i would like the fast you the following question. you have mentioned a number of, let's say, tools with such as several weapons, such as drones and special forces. there just tools. to achieve what?
, had been a member of the bureau and of course general of the u.n., son of leo chukchi whose political commissar of the general logistics department. both of these officers did not receive promotions obviously and reflects to me continued effort to and affect consolidate in power, professional military officers who are loyal to the party, not engaged in chinese politics and in this context, suggesting over time the gradual diminution of the dominant influence of ground forces in china's military. we see this in a couple respects and of course related to this that the parallel rise at the air force, navy and perhaps to an extent the central artillery. luscious look for example at two new members of the -- two new vice chair of the central military commission. cheong alluded to that debate before. one, general fund chung moon of the military region. general phong did something unusual. he jumped to greece. he never served in the military commission in this case he leapfrogged totally uncharacteristic in order to be promoted to vice chair of the cmc. but the military region i should note
by the populationst un is against us? >> that is the answer i have just given you.r tha the rules of engagement are different but i cannot make specific judgment with your written a vice but it is the sole reason it is a complex tapestry of a number of reasons. >> if i might their recent statistics. and the north atlantic council always takes an interest.on the latest report suggested % of civil 80% of casualties are caused by the insurgents to be at issued did to the outer forces. >> don't misunderstand. my question relates 20,063rd 2007. >> those in civilian casualties there is still blamed for the level oftime violence sometimes precarious. >> as soon as there is any indit indication but local a visit maybebility and casualty. so that maybe the environment attributed. >> with a final remark protecting the civilian population we have that protection that would not be t viable the. >> general, deciding the eules of engagement with the north atlantic council and does direct that the rules of engagd does direct that the rules of engagement and there itti and i possibility of as civilian casualty
's unparalleled success. at the u.n. last year, president obama spoke strongly about this thing that the u.s. quote will support a free and open internet so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. no one has been a more forceful advocate of the economic and social opportunities of the open internet and secretary of state hillary clinton. who delivered a landmark speech on internet freedom in 2010 when she said that one of the fundamental freedoms of the internet age was the freedom to connect. the idea that government should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. now, internet freedom is sometimes cited as an obstacle to addressing the issues of cybersecurity and intellectual property theft. i disagree with that. i disagree not because i question the importance of issues of the magnitude of the threat. a very serious problem we have to address. but i believe based on my experience that we can address those issues without undermining the core values like internet freedom and privacy. we've put our money where our mouths are at
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21